Originally posted by Evil Dead
nuclear weapons.........and I'm funny???WTF??a nation goes to war with you......so instead of fighting the enemy in military combat, you completely destroy the nation? you kill all of it's innocent civilians?
that's the exact opposite purpose of any military.......to defend innocent civilians, domestic and foreign. War is fought between governments......not between guys with nuclear weapons and innocent families of 4 sitting at home in their kitchen eating dinner.
Seeing as everybody is to afraid of that outcome they won't attack the US with a real army... No country that has the ability to threaten the survival of the US through war will fight the war. It's suicide, so the draft will never have to happen again.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
if i am not mistaken, isnt china our ally?
Only as long as they can't destroy the US without being destroyed themselves...
Country's and alliances always surprise me, throughout all of history superpowers have never lived next to each other for a long time... Conflicts always rise up, but in the new situation of the world with weapons that can destroy the entire world those conflicts will be limited to other country's where they fight for support, to fights for resources outside of their own territory and diplomatic struggles.
A full out war like the second world war will likely never happen again.
One method being used to bolster troops is re-upping—getting officers who have served and left the military to re-enlist.
The Army recently sent out more than 5,100 letters to former service members urging them to return to active duty.
Of those letters, 75 were sent to soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and another 200 were sent to service members wounded in the war.
The mistake has left the military red-faced.
"Army personnel officials are contacting those officers' families now to personally apologize for erroneously sending the letters," the Army said in a statement.
According to the Army, the names and addresses were electronically compiled and the error was not caught in a vetting process.
More than 3,000 members of the US military have died in Iraq since the war began.
While the armed forces are frantic to attract people, especially with mounting speculation that George W. Bush this week will call for an additional 20,000 troops to be sent to Iraq, the Pentagon says it remains opposed to repealing a ban on gays serving openly in the military, even though a study concludes that doing so could attract as many as 41,000 new recruits.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
I would support a draft bill.any member of any nation it chooses to live in should be obligated to serve that nation's military if needed. Here in the United States we take too many freedoms for granted. Our freedoms are only assured by our military strength. Anybody who lives in this country but would not readily join it's military during it's hour of need to protect it's rights, freedoms, civilians and their very own families should be forced to relocate to another nation of their choosing.
I don't agree with our current government. I don't even agree with our political system........but I would grab an M-16 and jump in a helicopter in a second to protect this piece of land and way of life I call home to ensure my way of life and my family's way of life.
I would have went into Afganistan because we were actually defending ourselves with the War on Terror and that's where our attackers were. But Iraq? Bush, the former oil tycoon, wanted oil cheaper and in larger quantities, had a personal vendetta against Sadam, and wanted to force Capitalist Democracy on yet another country,.
Originally posted by Adam_PoENow that's fking ridiculous. Why gay men can't serve in the army is beyond me. Women serve in the army. How is this any different? Worried about them having promiscuous gay sex during basic training? BIG FKING DEAL! That can't really do damage, it'd really only help. I mean, I know if I was in the military I would like to get my dick wet once in a while.
While the armed forces are frantic to attract people, especially with mounting speculation that George W. Bush this week will call for an additional 20,000 troops to be sent to Iraq, the Pentagon says it remains opposed to repealing a ban on gays serving openly in the military, even though a study concludes that doing so could attract as many as 41,000 new recruits.
Originally posted by Marxman
Now that's fking ridiculous. Why gay men can't serve in the army is beyond me. Women serve in the army. How is this any different? Worried about them having promiscuous gay sex during basic training? BIG FKING DEAL! That can't really do damage, it'd really only help. I mean, I know if I was in the military I would like to get my dick wet once in a while.
You need gay people to use showers... You could use it on your own, actually I'm sure most people in your surrounding area would be very happy if you did.
The US doesn't need a massive army to protect its own boarders. Canada and Mexico aren't able to launch a major offensive. Anyone else wanting to invade the country will have a hard time doing it without the US knowing you're coming.
MAD made sure the US won't be attacked by a superpower any time soon. But research (by all parties) for Anti-Ballistic-Missile-Systems such as SDI could make MAD useless.
The only reason I can think of, why the US would need a massive army (and why it has army bases all over the globe) is to ensure its foreign interests.
Ahhh the Humble draft. Something which I can cleanly ignore due to be British.
Nonetheless , Evil Dead I'm sorry to say this but you sound like a walking propaganda machine. Military might does not equate into freedom or the ability to pick which religion you wish.
Look at the various dictatorships , they (usually) have exceedingly high numbers of troops whom are armed with reasonably good tech (Fire-arms ect) . Yet they aren't free. Far from it in-fact.